Ok, what is wrong with this picture? A video taken by passenger Emma Baum shows an obnoxious man yelling support for Donald Trump on her flight and calling other passengers “Hillary bitches.” Delta proceeds to take the man off the plane but then returns the man to his seat and allows him to take the flight. Come again? A passenger yells profanities and abuses other passengers and Delta still reportedly allows him to take that flight with those passengers? Update: Delta has now banned the man from Delta flights for life.

If there was a passenger who was arguing with the man, it does not appear on the videotape. If so, that passenger should also have been removed if he or she was disruptive in the same fashion. If he was drunk, a later flight offers a wonderful opportunity to sober up. The point is that this is not about politics but rather conduct.

Here is the video:

The flight was from Atlanta to Allentown and the man had already obviously been screaming before the videotape began. The man was yelling “Donald Trump baby!” and We got some Hillary bitches on here?” while pointing at passengers. He added “Donald Trump is your President. Every god damn one of you. If you don’t like it, too bad.”

I could not care less who he supported. The fact is that he was yelling and abusing passengers but Delta still returned him to the flight. He clearly was not apologetic according to one witness who said that, upon sitting back down, the man said “This is what you get for being a patriot.”

No, this is what you get for being a utter idiot and nuisance. Indeed, his rude performance likely delighted some who want to portray all Trump supporters as part of that “basket of deplorables.” I do not blame other passengers being a tad put out in learning that someone can engage in such bizarre and disturbing fashion but still be deemed fit to fly, particularly after all of stories of people being booted over tee-shirts (and here) or tweets.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr,
der protestieren konnte.[1]
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
“First they came…” – The origins of this poem first have been traced to a speech given by Niemöller on January 6, 1946, to the representatives of the Confessing Church in Frankfurt. According to research by Harold Marcuse, the original groups mentioned in the speech were Communists, the incurably sick, Jews, and people in occupied countries. Since then, the contents have often been altered produce numerous variants. Niemöller himself came up with different versions, depending on the year. The most famous and well known alterations are perhaps those beginning “First they came for the Jews” of which this is one of the more commonly encountered:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Another variant extends the comparisons to incude Catholics and Protestants:
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Other translations or variants:
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
Twenty-five years later Niemöller indicated that this was the version he preferred, in a 1971 interview.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I did not speak out;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
As I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.
First the Nazis came…
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me —
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The renunciation of war as expressed in the Japanese Constitution has given a first ray of hope to a world in darkness and despair, and men today cling to this hope passionately. Can we really do something about it or are we to stand aside as idle onlookers, unable to contribute for better or for worse?
Statement for a Japanese publication (February 1954), as quoted in Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (1984) by James Bentley, p. 214

I have never concealed the fact and said it before the court in 1938 that I came from an anti-Semitic past and tradition… I ask only that you look at my life historically and take it as history. I believe that from 1933 I truly represented the Lutheran-Christian outlook on the Jewish question — as I revealed before the court — but that I returned home after eight years’ imprisonment as a completely different person.
Letter to a Dr. Weiner (1956), as quoted in Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (1984) by James Bentley, p. 334

We had been frightened of atomic weapons since 1945. In those days I became convinced — and remain convinced now — that, after Hitler, Truman was the greatest murderer in the world.
On his movement toward pacifism and becoming an activist against nuclear weaponry, as quoted in Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (1984) by James Bentley, p. 213

For politicians truth and falsehood are unimportant. So I never could become a politician — not even a church politician.
As quoted in Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984 (1984) by James Bentley, p. 223

bill mcwilliams – don’t forget that for the most part of the Cold War, Cuba was getting money and help from the Soviets. They were not in it by themselves. And let’s not forget that time they tried to put nuclear missiles on the island. Missiles that could kill Americans. And while the Cubans were starving, with 3rd world medicine and 50’s cars, Castro had lots of food and women and houses. And he got his medical services off the island, if I remember correctly.

Would you NOW like to admit that in your eagerness to denigrate the achievements of Castro – in the face of 50+ years of U.S. aggression and attempts to assassinate him, YOU WERE WRONG in your memory and your claim?

bill mcwilliams – my memory was wrong, they brought the doctor to him. He was not treated by a Cuban surgeon, but rather by a Spanish surgeon. Same one from 1980 treated him again in 2005. 3 surgeries this time.

Bill McWilliams…
-You left out a few things in your tribute to Castro.
Like the fact that Assata Shakur, who you describe as “a courageous revolutionary Black woman”, was convicted of murder.
She escaped, fled to Cuba, and has been harbored by the Castro regime for about 35 years.
To fill in some other substantial omissions in your flowery tribute, check out Castro’s victory tour of the U.S. in 1959, after he overthrew Batista.
And his appearances with Jack Paar and Ed Sullivan.
There was in fact a period of friendly relations between the U.S. and Cuba.
When Castro seized American assets in Cuba, broke his promise to conduct free elections ( and kept breaking it to this day), and aligned himself with the USSR, things went south pretty fast with the U.S.-Castro relationship.
You and other fans of Castro mention NONE of these facts, and selectly glean and present only an incomplete version of the history of the Castro regime.
That may help in your hero worship of a two-bit dictator, but the actual historical record tells a different story.

All in all, Fidel Castro did a pretty good job for his country, and the proof is that if you look at the standard of living and conditions for average people in places like Haiti, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. it’s easy to see that life was better for the Cuban people than in any of those other places, which still held onto the old aristocratic wealth vs. peasantry models of the previous century.

But, but what about Reagan, Brushes, and Clinton’s “help” in Central America, South America, Iran, Iraq, Syria — and too many others to list,

Very odd. Three weeks after the election and a Trump supporter is ranting? Hillary supporters are still in their safe places or plotting to disrupt the inauguration. With no name attached there’s no delving into his FB, voter registration, etc.